Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout090402 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, September 4, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Chiniaeff. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, and Chairman Chiniaeff. None. Assistant Manager O'Grady, Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Attorney Ahn, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Marketing Coordinator Wolnick, Office Technician Cammarato, Assistant Planner Preisendanz, and Minute Clerk Hansen. Olhasso, Telesio, 1.1 Approve the Agenda of September 4, 2002. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from August 7, 2002. R:P~a nComr n/minut es/090402 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Economic Development Presentation by Ms. Michelle Schierberl and Assistant Mana.qer Jim O'Grady Via a PowerPoint presentation, Assistant Manager O'Grady provided a detailed overview of Temecula's Economic Development Program (per agenda material), relaying the fotlowing: Noted that many successful components of this program were instituted under the leadership of Ms. Mary Jane Olhasso when she worked for the City of Temecula; · Specified the goals and policies in the General Plan which addressed economic development; Relayed the marketing efforts, the study information provisions, the site location assistance, and the economic alliance of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, and Riverside County; Noted the City's partnering efforts with the Economic Development Corporation of Riverside County (EDC), with the Chamber of Commerce and UCR Connect for marketing to the high technical sector, for venture and capital and networking, and to assist in the economic development efforts; Relayed the vital role the brokers had in the business community who actively sell Temecula everyday, advising that City staff provides information to these individuals; Advised that he, as well as Marketing Coordinator Wolnick were actively involved economic development, noting as well that all the City employees, Boards, Commissions, and Councit play a part in this matter; Apprised the Planning Commission of the tourism efforts; Via charted data, specified the growth in employment opportunities in Temecula, manufacturing and retail business empIoyment providing the largest number of jobs, and manufacturing business employment providing a higher average payroll per capita; Provided additional information regarding the City's financial status; For Commissioner OIhasso, relayed that he would notify her when Dr. Husing's presentation was scheduled for the City Council. Commissioner Olhasso recommended that once staff had the community profile that the strategic plan be updated, and offered to volunteer her time, if needed, for this process. R:Pla nComm/minutes/090402 2 For Commissioner Guerriero, Assistant Manager O'Grady provided additional information regarding the marketing outreach, which takes place between the property owner and prospective tenants, noting the potential changing variables in the market place; and advised that staff would continue efforts to attract high-end tenants. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Assistant Manager O'Grady relayed that in efforts to attract high technical industries staff worked with EDC as well as the Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance (noting that the representatives from these two agencies, Ms. Diane Sessions, and Ms. Stevie Field, were available for questions of the Planning Commission), focusing on the City's strengths, i.e., the types of industries which were successfully doing business in Temecula; noted that these marketing efforts took place primarily in northern California as well as in the Counties of San Diego and Los Angeles, advising that this was a long-term effort; relayed that one of the primary attractors to the City of Temecula was the high "Quality of Life," as well as the price of land, the skilled quality work force, the schools, and the recreational programs; and noted the goal to create a higher education center with 50,000 square feet of classroom/office space along with the development of affordable housing units which would render the lease rates more attractive for the education center. For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant Manager O'Grady relayed that San Diego and Riverside Universities were well-regarded, additionally noting that there were approximately 23 colleges and universities located in the Inland Empire, confirming the desire to bring these facilities closer to Temecula, noting that the satellite centers located in Temecula at this time served 2,000 students, reiterating the goal for creating a higher education facility in the City of Temecula; with respect to the brine line, relayed the efforts regarding this issue and the recent extension of the line to the City of Lake Elsinore; provided additiona~ information regarding efforts with respect to the airports, e.g., supporting efforts to preserve the French Valley Airport for small jets and private planes; and noted the importance in strategic planning of being aware of the City's strengths and weaknesses. Ms. Michelle Schierberl, Real Estate Broker with Grubb & Ellis Commercial Real Estate Services, responded to Planning Commission queries relaying the following: That the Gap use which was proposed to be located at the Bel Villaggio Center was a high-end use; That the importance of a good tenant mix was that it aided in attracting additional high- end tenants; That it would be helpful if the City's website included information regarding the regional area (e.g., from Fallbrook to Sun City) in order to reflect the larger regional population base which various tenants were seeking; For Commissioner Olhasso, provided additional information regarding the necessary elements (e.g., a $75,000 minimum household income, and a good mix of existing tenants) for the development of "Lifestyle Centers" to be seriously considered in a City; and For Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding marketing research programs which while costly provide a developer with vital information R:PlanComnYminute~090402 3 regarding comprehensive data on all existing and upcoming projects, e.g., the Harveston Project. Chairman Chiniaeff commented on the waiting period while this particular area attained the desired population base necessary for acquiring some high-end uses, advising that while there was a finite amount of land available, proposals were being submitted which were consistent with the City's zoning. In response, Ms. Schierberl advised that in various cities, the cities have purchased the retail land in order to land bank the property. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Appeal of PA01-0601 Unmanned Telecommunication Facility. Requestinq a continuance to September 18, 2002, Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant Planner Preisendanz relayed that this Agenda Item referred to the proposed telecommunications facility located at the Temeku Hills Golf Course; and confirmed that it was staff's recommendation that this item be continued in order for staff to review the recently submitted studies. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this item to the September 18, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0231, 0233, 0234 and 0236 (Development Plan/Product Review- Harveston, Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner PROPOSAL: PA02-0231: A Development Plan / Product Review for detached single-family residences within Planning Area No. 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan located southwest of the intersection of Date Street and Margarita Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29928-2 and 29928-3; PA02-0233: A Development Plan / Product Review for detached single-family residences within Planning Area No. 4 of the Harveston Specific Plan located southwest of the intersection of Date Street and Margarita Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29639; PA02-0234: A Development Plan I Product Review for detached single-family residences within Planning Area No. 3 of the Harveston Specific Plan located west of Ysabel Barnett Elementary School, east of Harveston Lake, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-170-010, 916-170-0tl and 916-170-007, Tentative Tract Map 29929-1; PA02-0236: A Development Plan / Product Review for detached single-family residences within Planning Area No. 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan located south of Oak Street, west of Margarita Road, between Harveston R:PlanComm/minutes/090402 4 School Road and Major Entry off of Oak Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29928-2 and 29928-3. LOCATION: Generally located south of Date Street and west of Margarita Roads. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application(s) No. 02-0231, 0233, 0234 and 0236 (Development Plan(s) / Product Review(s)) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations; 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 02-033 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0231 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN / PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA NO. 7 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DATE STREET AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004 AND 916-170-011, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29928-2 AND 29928-3; 5.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 02-034 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0233 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN / PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA NO. 4 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DATE STREET AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004 AND 916-170- 011, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29639; 5.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:PlanCom m/rr~n u ~es/090402 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 02-035 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0234 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN / PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA NO. 3 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED WEST OF YSABEL BARNETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND EAST OF HARVESTON LAKE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-170-010 AND 916-170-011 AND 916-170-007 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29929-1; 5.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0236 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN I PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA NO. 7 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF OAK STREET, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN HARVESTON SCHOOL ROAD AND MAJOR ENTRY OFF OF OAK STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004, 916-180-008, 916-170-011 AND 916-170-007 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29928-1 AN D 29928. By way of overheads, Assistant Planner Preisendanz presented the project proposal (per agenda material), which included plans submitted by Lennar Communities for 300 homes within Planning Areas 3, 4, and 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan, advising that each area has been designed by a different architect, each differentiated by varying colors on the map (i.e., green, pink, blue, and yellow); relayed that each architect was proposing three design plans, specifying the diverse styles; provided an overview of the materials which would be utilized and the enhanced architectural features, noting the applicant's submitted data which identifies the Public View Elevation Enhancement Plan which would provide assurance that the applicant would provide enhancements on the elevations that are within the public view; advised that staff has had numerous meetings with the applicant to discuss architectural enhancements and has had significant input since the first submittals; and specified that staff was recommending that Condition No. 19 (regarding provision of electric meters for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting) be deleted. Mr. Bill Storm, representing Lennar Communities, provided an update on the status of the project; introduced the representatives available for questions; reiterated the applicant's provision of the exhibit identifying each lot and the public view of each elevation, if any; enumerated the elements beside the architectural treatments which were included in the project and would contribute to the neighborhood aesthetics, as follows: landscaped parkways, nostalgic lighting, mini-parks, architectural forward designs, single-stow elements, short street lengths, trails, front porches, and narrower streets; concurred with Commissioner OIhasso, that Iow fencing could provide a positive visual appearance; and provided additional information regarding cable and fiber services within the project. R:PlanOomm/minute~090402 6 Mr. David Viggiano, architect representing the applicant, noted, for Chairman Chiniaeff, that typically the fencing would be five to six feet in height, advising that a portion (approximately one foot) of the first story windows would be visible above the fencing; for Commissioner Olhasso, confirmed that every plan included curb separated parkways; for Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Guerriero, provided additional information regarding the plan to utilize composition roofing materials on particular design styles; relayed that a high quality composition material has a profile with shape and shadows, with a 40-50 year warranty, advising that the costs of installing this type of roofing were similar to the costs of installing tile roofing. Ms. Maureen Kohal, representing the applicant, relayed that her experience with the higher quality composition roofing material was that buyers were opting for this roofing style, that it was included as an optional element and would be implemented dependent on the consistency with the design styles, and that the roofing would be installed in groups, Mr. Viggiano advising that there was a tremendous desire for diversity in the market, Mr. Storm relaying that it was not his desire to restrict the architects to one roofing style, advising that marketing issues will determine whether the roofing material would be implemented in the future phases. With respect to roofing, Commissioner Telesio opined that if on the same street within the same type of housing, composition roofs and tile roofs were both installed, the composition roofing would be perceived as a lesser quality, Commissioner Guerriero opining that with the higher quality composition roofing the appearance was visually pleasing. For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Storm relayed that with respect to the homes with alleyways, that the alleys would be landscaped, that the primary view of the home from the alley would be the garage, and that the socializing in these homes would predominantly take place in the front of the house. Commissioner Mathewson advised that the landscape treatments in the alley would be just as important as the rear architectural enhancements. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's queries, Mr. Viggiano clarified the difference between the standard architectural features verses the enhanced elevation designs which would be implemented when the elevation was visible from the public's view, Chairman Chiniaeff relaying that it would be his desire that there be additional articulation to break up the massing, e.g., pop-out treatments, window trim. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Storm relayed that with respect to Plan One which was The Craftsman, the side elevations which were exposed to the public view would typically be the elevation with the wraparound porch and not the blank elevation, and that on the side elevation, the stucco first-story wall would be screened by the fencing; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, reiterated that at the beginning of the alleyway on the corner there would be enhanced landscaping to screen the alley view, as well as enhanced side elevations. Regarding Product L, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed a desire for the corner lots to have enhanced first floor elevations as well as second floor enhancements due to the view of the first floor above the fencing, recommending that the materials utilized on the front of the building wrap around to the side of the house; relayed the expectation that a~ the windows on the first and second floor be enhanced when that particular e~evation was in R:Pla n Comm#ninut esi090402 7 the public view; and referencing the map denoting Harveston Neighborhood N-21, specified that in the Product L Plan, the following lots should have additional enhancements on the rear elevations due to being located within the public view: Lot Nos. 1, 15, 19, 29, 30, 43, 44, 56, 57, 69, 70, 71, and 72. For Commissioner Olhasso, Chairman Chiniaeff confirmed that the plans denote second- story rear elevation enhancements for the elevations in the public view. Reiterating the Planning Commission's direction, Chairman Chiniaeff specified that in the Cottage Homes (Product L) where there was public exposure there should be wraparound materials (on the side elevations), and fenestration on the first and second floors; and advised that it was the general consensus of the Commission that the composition roofing material would be acceptable while it would not be satisfactory to install all composition roofing. In response, Mr. Storm relayed his concern regarding the recommendation for fenestration on the first floor where there would be fencing which aided in screening this area, Commissioner Olhasso recommended that there simply be a foam pop-out around the windows on these particular elevations, to which the Planning Commission concurred. Mr. Storm agreed that this type of enhancement (window surrounds on the first floor) would not be too costly. For informational purposes, Mr. Storm advised that the varying roof forms would add more visual interest to the street scene than any other element. With respect to the Product F Plan, and referencing a map denoting Harveston Neighborhood N-10 and a map denoting Harveston Neighborhood N-22, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the following elevations on these specified lots be enhanced architecturally due to being located in the public view: Lot No. 107: the side elevation; Lot No. 94: the rear elevation; the side elevation between Lot Nos. 94 and 95; Lot Nos. 102 and 103: the rear elevations; Lot No. 38: the rear elevation; Lot 40: the side elevation; Lot No. 13: the side elevation; and on Lot Nos. 3 and 4: one side elevation. For clarification, Mr. Storm noted that the exhibits do not reflect the actual plotting, but indicate the building envelopes; and while generally agreeing with the recommendations for enhancement, noted that when the actual plotting was completed some of these recommended enhancements might not be necessary. The Commission considered Product D at this time. Due to the proposed placement of one-story homes, accommodating Commissioner Mathewson's previous recommendation, and due to this product being wider, Mr. Storm relayed that the applicant will most likely need to come back to staff for a few minor setback modifications even though the homes will be plotted on the bigger lots; and for Commissioner Mathewson, advised that if the minor exceptions were not granted, two- story homes would be plotted on these particular lots. Commissioner Mathewson noted his disappointment for the following two reasons: first, due to solely fifteen percent (15%) of the homes being proposed as one-story, and secondly, due to the reduction of those one-story homes if an exception to the setback was not granted. R:Pla nComm/minute s/090402 8 For clarification, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that staff could only approve a fifteen percent (15%) variance in the setback requirements, with the exception of a twenty percent (20%) variance in the cul-de-sacs, recommending that if there were a number of lots, which would require a setback variance, the lots should be presented together as one package. In response, Mr. Storm relayed that he was still working on the precise plotting of these homes. With respect to the design elements, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that it appeared that with the Craftsman Plan, the stucco proposed above the garage should be a siding material to be true to form. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Viggiano relayed the approach implemented in this design, specifically to represent the house design and materials from all views, advising that since a significant amount of stucco would be placed on this home, some stucco would also be represented on the front of the buildings, and the front accent siding material would be placed on the sides, advising that this plan creates an honest representation with a tasteful blend of the materials, Chairman Chiniaeff noting that the siding was not carried through on the side elevations. Mr. Viggiano advised that when developing these design guidelines, architects were directed to return materials to an inside corner, specifying the design process on this plan. Commissioner Olhasso concurred that the side elevations should not be so void. In response, Mr. Storm noted his intention for the front yard landscaping to bleed into this area, noting his plan to indicate landscaping between the houses and to push the walls back as much as feasible in order to improve the streetscape. In response to Planning Commission's comments, Mr. Viggiano was agreeable to removing the wood trim denoted on the front elevation of the one-story American Farmhouse design, advising that there were eight alternate design styles and it was not necessary to implement the American Farmhouse one-story design. With the Planning Commission's concurrence, Mr. Storm relayed that Mr. Viggiano would work together with Assistant Planner Preisendanz to address the recommendation for revision. With respect to Product D Plan, referencing the map denoting Harveston Neighborhood N-8A, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the rear and side elevations should be enhanced on the extreme left and right lots located on Date Street, as well as the rear elevations on the three right lots; with respect to the lots located on Westchester Court, that the lot with the yellow triangle symbol (in the cul-de-sac) should have the rear elevation enhanced; referencing the map denoting Harveston Neighborhood N-8B, recommended the following: that the lot with the single-story designation located next to the blue dot and proximate on the mapping to the N-a-n in the spelling of the street name, the side elevation on this particular lot should be enhanced (where the street breaks away at this location); that on Lot No. 93, the rear elevation be enhanced; that on Lot Nos. 87 and 98, the rear elevation should be enhanced (proximate to the Open Space), unless landscaping is installed to screen these elevations from the public view; and advised that various homes located at the corner backing Date Street at Margarita Road should have enhanced elevations when in public view, Mr. Storm advising that these homes may be screened by the slope and the six-foot wall on Margarita Road. With respect to Product B, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she was disappointed with the architectural design, additionally opining that the product should be larger i.e., over 4,000 square feet in size due to these homes being designed for move-up buyers. Regarding square footage, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that since the Planning Commission had previously approved the square footage, he was not making recommended revisions regarding this element, Mr. Storm noting, for Commissioner Olhasso, that the marketing results from the first phase may impact a determination to increase the square footage of this product in the next phase. The following comments were expressed regarding Product B: Commissioner Olhasso recommended that this particular product go back for re-design, opining that the Cottages were better designed than this product. Commissioner Guerriero concurred that the architectural design should be improved on this product. With respect to Style 2B, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he had no objection to this design. Commissioners Guerriero and OIhasso emphasized that this product was the largest product being offered, advising that the buyers for this product would be professionals coming from Orange and San Diego Counties with an expectation for a high level of architectural design. In response, Mr. Storm concurred that the market has significantly evolved recently, advising that if the market dictates a need for larger homes, the second phase product would be larger. Chairman Chiniaeff reiterated that it was his opinion that the Planning Commission not dictate the size of the product due to this issue being related to marketing factors. Concurring with the need for architectural improvement, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that Styles lA and 3C needed wraparound enhancements. In response, Mr. Viggiano concurred that Styles lA and 3C should be redesigned; for Commissioner Guerriero, noted the difficulties in designing a one-story plan with this project; provided additional information regarding the concept of designing a home with a one-story appearance, predominantly with one-story features, and a few two-story components which provided benefits with respect to the streetscape, the livability of the residence, and the opportunity to place the project on a narrower lot, advising that at least fifty pement (50%) of the product would have a one-story roof, and that the second story on this particular unit would be towards the rear elevation. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm relayed that it would be his desire to make revisions within the existing footprint, advising that he would appreciate Mr. Viggiano's input regarding implementing changes; and noted that he would bring back to the Planning Commission revised elevations for this particular product. R:PlanComm/r~n u leS/090402 10 Commissioner Telesio relayed that it was his understanding that one-story homes would be included for the purpose of providing a true one-story unit for buyers who preferred a one-story residence, and not solely for the provision of a pleasing street ambience. Summarizing the Planning Commission's direction, Chairman Chiniaeff reiterated that modifications were made to the plotting at various locations in terms of elevations, that the enhanced articulation should extend down to the first floor, i.e., wraparound window treatments, that on various projects the materials utilized on the front elevations would be wrapped around the sides of the homes, in particular on the first product type, i.e., The Cottages; and advised that the Planning Commission concurred with the recommendation to delete Condition No. 19 (regarding provision of electric meters for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting.) In order to clarify his opinion, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that implementation of fifteen percent (15%) one-story homes does not constitute a diligent effod at providing a satisfactory mix, additionally noting that if the predominant one-story homes (which were homes with a few two-story elements) were going to take the place of fifty percent (50%) of the proposed one-story homes, many of the architectural designs would not be suitable for revision to implement this concept (the predominantly one-story unit), specifically The Spanish Colonial, The Monterey, and The Cottages; advised that whiIe architecturally, overall, the proposals were excellent, it was his fear that the lack of single-story homes would create a canyon-like appearance, reiterating that he did not understand the reluctance to implement one-story homes; and recommended that the proposed two-story homes should be revised to create a softer appearance, and a roof which appeared to be primarily one-story. Commissioner Telesio opined that, overall, the proposal was excellent and consistent with what the applicant originally relayed. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that it was his understanding that a specific number of one-story homes could not be dictated; advised that it would be pleasing to staff and the Planning Commission if the applicant could demonstrate on the site plan a mix of single-family projects, incorporating various concepts expressed by the applicant's architect; and relayed that due to the diversity in architectural style, the canyon effect (which was a concern of Commissioner Mathewson's) would be minimized. Additional discussion ensued regarding the lot sizes and the placement of one-story homes. For an improved street scene and in light of the narrower streets, Commissioner Olhasso noted the importance of a mix with one-story product. In response to Commissioner OIhasso, Mr. Storm provided additional information regarding the applicant's marketing data, Commissioner Olhasso advising that both she and Dr. Husing could provide additional marketing information to the applicant's marketing analysis provider. Chairman Chiniaeff relayed hopes that in the plotting for the next product there would be a larger number of single-story homes. R:Pla n ComnVl~J n ut esi090402 11 Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that when the precise plotting was brought before the Planning Commission the views of the roofs from the street could be reviewed, recommending that the applicant focus on a few sections of street, bringing forward line drawings of these street sections, demonstrating the roof elevations from the public's view. Acknowledging that the number of one-story homes could not be dictated, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that when the precise plotting plans were developed that staff and the applicant create a diversity of setbacks and that the number of two-story homes, which have more of a boxed-appearance, be few, in order to improve the streetscape. In response, Mr. Storm reiterated that the project was not conditioned to provide any one- story homes, and that if Commissioner Mathewson was correct, and if the market revealed a high demand for one-story units, the number would be increased in the next phase. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; to approve staff's recommendation with respect to Item Nos. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 as discussed during the public hearing, and subject to the deletion of Condition No. 19 (regarding provision of electric meters for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting); and to continue Item No. 5.5 (regarding Planning Application No. 02-0236) to the September 18, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who abstained. With respect to the comment regarding the Planning Commission raising the bar with respect to design expectations with this project and holding other developers to the same standard, Commissioner Olhasso relayed, for informational purposes, that this design level was now the standard and that this was the minimal expectation. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS For Commissioner OIhasso, Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided an update regarding the Code Enforcement issue at the furniture use located adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway; and relayed that he would request Director of Planning Ubnoske to report back regarding this issue. Commissioner Guerriero noted that there was no flagging taking place during the road construction activity on Rancho California Road, resulting in the backing up of traffic. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that at the Guidant property it was his understanding that the property was being graded in conformance with the approved Tentative Parcel Map, providing additional information regarding these parcels. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy City Manager Thornhill updated the Planning Commission regarding the staff recruitment process. R:Pla n ComrNmin ut es/090402 12 ADJOURNMENT At 9:18 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next re,qular meetin.q to be held on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:P[a n ComrNmin ut es/090402 13